American Conservative Herald

The Supreme Court is an important part of our system of government, seeing that it’s the judicial branch, which interprets the constitutionality of legislation and ruling on the legality of one interpretation over another.

Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, is just a little too, well, perfect, for Democrats to deal with. So now they are looking for any and every way they can to stop his confirmation from proceeding, since they would much prefer someone with a more liberal outlook.

The latest attack against Gorsuch coming from the desperate Democrats is in the form of an accusation of plagiarism, which has even been debunked by the person he supposedly plagiarized from!

From Hot Air:

Several publications were aware that a group of Democratic supporters were shopping around a smear against Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch this week in which they alleged instances of plagiarism in his published works. The charges stem from a few passages from his book on assisted suicide and an academic article published over a decade ago. The group finally found a customer at Politico who ran with the claims last night.

Via Politico:

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch copied the structure and language used by several authors and failed to cite source material in his book and an academic article, according to documents provided to POLITICO.

The documents show that several passages from the tenth chapter of his 2006 book, “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” read nearly verbatim to a 1984 article in the Indiana Law Journal. In several other instances in that book and an academic article published in 2000, Gorsuch borrowed from the ideas, quotes and structures of scholarly and legal works without citing them.

The findings come as Republicans are on the brink of changing Senate rules to confirm Gorsuch over the vehement objections of Democrats. The documents could raise questions about the rigor of Gorsuch’s scholarship, which Republicans have portrayed during the confirmation process as unimpeachable.

Other academics defended Gorsuch in National Review:

Dr. Chris Mammen, a fellow student of Gorsuch’s at Oxford, emphasizes that the “standard practice in a dissertation is to cite the underlying original source, not a secondary source, that supports a factual statement.”

Oxford professor emeritus John Finnis, who supervised Gorsuch’s dissertation and has reviewed the charges, says that “none of the allegations has any substance or justification” and that Gorsuch’s “writing and citing was easily and well within the proper and accepted standards of scholarly research and writing in the field of study in which he was working.”

At least four other academics have reviewed and rejected the plagiarism charges. But that evidently won’t stop some newspapers from scurrilously spreading them.

Even the author whose work Gorsuch is accused of stealing, Abigail Lawlis Kuzma has stated that the charges against Gorsuch are wrong:

“These passages are factual, not analytical in nature,” Kuzma, now a deputy attorney general in Indiana, said. “It would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language.”

Democrats are so desperate to hang onto their slim majority in the Supreme Court they will do anything to hold it, even slandering a man with impeccable credentials.